The reality of national security education in schools has begun to hit home. This round, a comprehensive review on all books and teaching materials are conducted for contents such as “separation of powers.” After the “textbook consultation services” provided by the Education Bureau, some textbook publishers deleted and modified the contents of the liberal studies textbooks that made references about Hong Kong having “separation of powers.” Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung, in response, said that “separation of powers” does not exist in Hong Kong. Chief Executive Carrie Lam voiced her full support for the Education Minister, reiterating that “there was in fact no separation of powers in Hong Kong.” She further said that she does not want to blame anyone for being ambiguous but after having reviewed previous remarks made by some top judges, she believed the comments on “separation of powers” were made in reference to the “division of labor.” She also hoped that the executive, legislature and judiciary powers could fulfill their own duties while “working together.” Lam added that there was “no room for ambiguity” over Hong Kong’s education under the constitutional order. The government, she said, must rectify any obscurity on the topic and have the courage to speak out and state the correct position.

There has never been a theory stated for the system that Hong Kong follows. The executive-led system of governance is not set out in the provisions of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. Everyone only recalls Xi Jinping mentioned the “Powers cooperation theory.” Carrie Lam claimed that the “separation of powers” referred to by the judiciary is not in the sense of a separation of powers but a division of powers. Carrie Lam’s statement is incorrect. A division of labor functions so that each branch can perform its duties while the purpose of the division of labor is not to cooperate with each other but to check and balance each other. Joseph Chan, a professor of political science at the University of Hong Kong, pointed out that even if the system of governance is “executive-led,” it is only one of the characteristics of the system of separation of powers. It does not replace the system nor does it damage the decentralization of the three institutions while achieving the essence of mutual checks and balances. The comprehensive review of school textbooks this time is a cleansing of what the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) considers to be “unhealthy practices.”

The worst “unhealthy practice” for the CCP is the separation of powers for checks and balances in the Western democratic systems. On the contrary, the CCP model follows a one-party dictatorship and does not engage in the core values of the West. As long as the party exists, all power institutions are under the command of the party committee. The party committee cooperates to realize the will of the party. The party dictates how the court decides the case, how the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPCSC) enacts legislation and how the mainland public security authorities enforce the law. In the event there are any mistakes, they can only be corrected by the party. You only possess as much power as the party grants you. There are no such things as institutional or constitutional powers.

In Hong Kong, the communist party firmly grips the executive power. How can it tolerate to be checked and balanced by the judiciary and legislation? Furthermore, this executive-led system of governance has quietly and surreptitiously transformed into a “dictatorship of the Chief Executive” in the past 20 years. Originally, the executive-led system from the British Administration was generally referred to as an administrative agency, which was relative to a legislative-led system. For example, the power of motion in council was in the hands of the administrative agency. This was the meaning of “an executive-led system.” However, today, the meaning has become a “dictatorship of the Chief Executive.” Carrie Lam’s argument is that because Hong Kong is directly under the Central People’s Government, although the city enjoys a high degree of autonomy, it is not self-sovereignty. She continued that the executive, legislative and judicial powers in Hong Kong are not a constitutional system separated from the powers of the central government. She maintained that the rights enjoyed by Hong Kong are granted by China and the core of the implementation of the central authority lies with the chief executive. She asserted that, for these reasons, Hong Kong follows an executive-led system of governance with the chief executive at its core. Ultimately, this is the centralized leadership model of the CCP where the local chief executive is appointed and empowered by the central government to override everything. There is no way it would be bounded by the checks and balances of separation of powers.

Her explanation is quite frank and clearly states how much autonomy remains under the one country, two systems. In the era under the system of national security, textbooks should not be bothered with the division of labor, the separation of powers and decentralization of power when the superior master is the core that transcends everything. The central government has Xi Jinping as the core representing the one-party dictatorship. In the local government authorized by the central government, then isn’t Carrie Lam the core representative? It is as simple as that.

(Simon Lau Sai-leung is a political commentator based in Hong Kong and a former full-time member of the HKSAR Central Policy Unit.)

Click here for Chinese version

---------------------------------

Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE

To download the latest version,

iOS: bit.ly/AD_iOS

Android: bit.ly/AD_android

Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play